[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep vs State Of Haryana on 17 April, 2026
CRM-M-5147 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221 CRM-M-5147 of 2026
Date of Decision: 17.04.2026
Sandeep ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Shikhar Goel, Advocate and
Mr. Sahil Rathour, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Pradeep Duhan, Advocate and
Ms. Ishita Arora, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.175 dated 11.04.2023 registered under Sections
148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 506 of IPC (Section 25 of the Arms Act and
Section 302 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Kheripul, District
Faridabad.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner in
connivance with other co-accused has made deadly assault on complainant
and his family and committed the murder of son of the complainant. Hence,
the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued
that the petitioner was roped in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion
without any concrete evidence. He argued that even if the contents of the
FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific role/injury has been attributed
to the present petitioner. He further argued that role of the petitioner is only
limited to the use of motor-cycle used to cause assault on family members of
the complainant and the same attracts only Sections 323/324 of IPC. He
further argued that Section 302 of IPC was added by the prosecution later on
only to make the offence graver. Further, co-accused Vidya Devi, Rahul
and Vijaypal have already been granted the concession of regular bail by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court. No recovery is to be effected from him. The
petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2023. The investigation in the case is
complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He
further submitted that there are total 39 prosecution witnesses and out of
them, only 08 have been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a
long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping
him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the
status report in the matter and while referring to the same, she has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the
offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and he is involved in
the heinous crime of murder of the deceased. She has further argued that
recovery of weapon i.e. danda has also been recovered from the petitioner.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant has put in
appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his Vakalatnama, which is
taken on record. He, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in
the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 03 years; similarly placed co-accused have been
granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; investigation in the FIR is
complete; challan stands presented; charges framed; out of 39 witnesses,
only 08 have been examined till date; the complicity of the petitioner is a
matter of trial; which is proceeding at snail's pace, and will take a long time
to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in
further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of trial being
concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
8. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to
ensure speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated
that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision
and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the
accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court.
9. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi
Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs.
State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001)
10 SCC 463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh
Vs. State of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5
SCC 752.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
17.04.2026 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
